Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!portal!atari!daisy!david
From: david@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: low power license free packet? (LONG reply)
Message-ID: <937@daisy.UUCP>
Date: 16 Mar 88 05:29:10 GMT
References: <17327@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> <1004@bcd-dyn.UUCP> <4726@ecsvax.UUCP> <697@anasaz.UUCP> <934@unccvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: david@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter)
Organization: Daisy Systems, Mt. View, CA
Lines: 59


[line eater bug-- does it still exist?]

My bias: I don't care either way; I'm not particularly biased.

My comment:

Mr. Anthony's argument is unconvincing.  He argues that because
commercial broadcasters pay taxes and provide jobs, they are some-
how entitled to large allocations of a scarce resource.  He also
makes an argument that commercial television broadcasters are
entitled to bandwidth because they risk much money on their
stations and because some stations serve areas which some people
claim are underserved.

The arguments in favor of packet radio cannot compete with the
economic analysis of existing commercial television broadcasters
because there is no existing packet radio service of the type
under discussion.  Therefore, no analysis can point to data with
as much authority and experience as commercial television.

However, if the proven financial success of a service is to be
the deciding factor in granting spectrum allocations, then no
new service will ever be introduced.

Commercial television broadcasters pay taxes; this does not give
them a lock on public policy decisions regarding spectrum alloca-
tion.  Commercial television broadcasters provide jobs, risk
money, and, to an extent which is controversial, they provide a
valuable service to the public.  None of these factors give an
obviously overwhelming reason to preserve the UHF-TV allocation
in (financial) favor of commercial television broadcasters.

Allocation of spectrum is not a narrow issue, to be decided on
financial grounds alone.  It is a public policy issue, in which
many competing factors must be taken into account.  This is one
reason why the Federal Communications Commission cannot react
quickly; it is deluged with comments from many special interest
groups and, being a political body, it cannot appear to give in
to any of them.

Allocation of spectrum must be decided on the basis of the public
interest, which is the charter of the FCC.  Mr. Anthony would make
a stronger case by discussing the merits of commercial television
broadcasting in more than financial terms.  For example, what
service will be provided by an incremental increase of UHF TV
broadcasting?  How does this compare with the establishment of
public packet radio? 

The level of acrimony in the discussion has been excessive.
While Mr. Anthony is, understandably, concerned about the possible
effect on his financial future, a more reasoned and reasonable
tone of discussion may prove helpful.

					-- David Schachter

disclaimer: Neither me or my company have any financial, personal,
or emotional stake in packet radio, television, or related topics.
(And I only watch PBS, fer sure.)